Noam Chomsky's Money " Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite the anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist he has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd puts it, writing critically in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those..."
Of course he's a hypocrite. He's also a complete tool of the establishment he pretends to rail against.
Whats all this assumption that you can't live in a capitalistic society and benefit form it without being aware that it causes suffering and exploitation? better to be crack addict and say crack is bad than go around claiming you're not one or thats its not addictive IMO.
redpoppy, From the article, I guess the point is more about is Chomsky contradicting what he as spoken out against himself? It's similar to what I've heard about Michael Moore who owns stock in companies he's railed against.
yeah I know what people are saying but I rally against sweat shops and yet I KNOW i wear clothes that are surely made in conditions that are horrendous. If chomsky isn't breaking the law and simply pointing out that teh law is made for the convenience of the rich and the expense of the poor then of course we shoudlpoint out that its hypocritical to say that when he's one of the rich making money at teh expense ofthe poor BUT to forget that the MAIN point is that the law needs to be changed to promote justice for all not about whether the messenger is wearing nikes. If you get what i'm saying. P.S. Nikes one brand i do manage to boycott.
You know what, it's folks like you that are the tool of the establishment. (Although you may very well admit that, I dont know since I haven't read about your politics) Regardless, you do a great disservice to the people struggling against capitalism. Yeah, so he is rich...how does that negate his argument? So maybe he is a hypocrite, again, does that make all the things that he is pointing out to people false? The movement against globalization and capitalism is fractured into millions of little personal movements exactly because of people like you. Here you have someone, who you could argue is an insider, giving you information that most people are 1. too lazy to get for themselves, 2. have no opportunity to get for themselves, 3. sure as hell wont get it in the mass media. So how about you take advanatge of that and get your head out of your...? You are making the rest of us who give a crap look bad. 26 year old my ass.
I’ve read this article before (I think I found it linked on wikipedia’s Chomsky critique page) and was not impressed at all. There’s much better stuff out there. Even an untrained baboon with a hammer and a Compaq could write a better hit piece than this piece of trash. It’s almost entirely ad hominem, seriously lacks sources to back up it’s claims, and the sources for some of its most serious claims are alleged email exchanges with Chomsky!? Give me a break! This sounds like this writer’s boss probably said to him, “Ok, I need a hit piece on Chomsky… oh and by the way, it’s due tomorrow.” It’s almost not worth commenting on, but since I have a bit of free time today I’ll hit a couple of the key issues. First of all, it’s not really fair to call anti-authoritarian anti-capitalists hypocritical because they live within the system, and hence must play the game. The truth is that the entire globe is owned/ruled by capitalists, authoritarians, or -in most cases- a mixture of both. There’s no where to hide. The only way to function with the rest of society is to become a part of it. So for example, in the southern US during the centuries when we had slavery, did the abolitionists who were most important to the anti-slavery movement live isolated in the woods refusing to participate in a corrupted society rather than trying to improve it from within? Of course they didn’t. Did they wear clothes made by slaves, live in houses built by slaves, and live off the backs of slave labor in one way or another most every day of their lives? Of course they did. Did that make them hypocrites? Maybe. That depends on your definition of a hypocrite. If it was for the cause of abolishing slavery then IMO (and in most peoples’ probably) it was justified. Same’s true in Chomsky’s case when he rallies against wage slavery. About having to pay for his stuff: sure it’s copywritten for formality reasons, but you can find more of his books, talks, films, debates, articles, etc. for free on the internet than any other intellectual. And he has never once complained about it, nor tried to fight the hundreds of gigs of torrents containing his message that get traded every day. In fact, he has stated numerous times that he does not agree with the notion intellectual property. Comments by publishers & little notes on websites simply do not count. Neither were written by Chomsky and there is not one shred of evidence proving that he has ever fought against copyright infringement. Chomsky never chose to be commodified. That’s simply the nature of the virus that is capitalism that we all have to deal with on a daily basis. It literally permeates everything. Economists see dollar signs on everything and, of course, they will commodify everything they can, even Chomsky. Capitalism will buy the noose that hangs it! Chomsky banks because he pulls a lot of weight (more than his fair share) in the activist community and because he’s a serious scholar. Just check out his bibliography. Anyone who’s ever read one of his books (not one of the speech pamphlets or something like that) cover to cover and his sources knows this. The parasite comment was obviously taken out of context and was tongue-in-cheek. Activists are happy to help Noam as, like I said before, he’s been such a big help to us all and not to mention an inspiration. His books sell overseas so much because he’s saying exactly what the rest of the world is thinking but don’t have the linguistic or English training to put their thoughts in such a way. Look, this current administration, rightly, is the most hated political leadership in history. Chomsky knows this, writes it, and his books sell. It’s not clever marketing, it’s telling the truth and having a great majority of the world population outside the US on your side. Not to mention he’s just doing what he’s always been doing, since the start of the Vietnam War: protesting the abuses of those in power. He’s only geared up recently because the abuses have risen so sharply in recent years and popular opposition to the status quo has hit record heights. At his age this shift into high gear is actually pretty impressive when you think about it. He has an intense schedule. Inside the US he’s still virtually unknown, albeit that’s slowly changing with the help of the internet and a certain elected world leader. No one in the US really knew who he was a couple of years ago except maybe for your average college activist or political science professor… however the mainstream media just flat out ignore him and hence most US citizens would still barely recognize his name, much less be able to tell you anything instructive about his views. Anyway, I could go on. The point is that this was just a virtually baseless ad hominem hit piece. This is what the reactionary right falls back on when they know they can’t debate the facts nor the issues at hand without looking ridiculous because their arguments are wrapped so deep in lies. Chomsky’s not a saint, nor has he ever been, nor is any human on this planet. At the risk of sounding ultra-cliché: everyone makes mistakes (given that any of the trash from this piece might actually be true, which I seriously doubt) & no one’s perfect. Chomsky’s no different. But that doesn’t discredit his ideas, this sub-baboon is just trying to deflect the argument away from them and instead focus on personal nonsense and rumors.
Chomsky is a tool of the establishment as he ignores the real power structure that runs the world through the control of credit. Instead, he places the blame on individual countries like the US, who are under the control of a global elite that sets policy from behind the scenes. Chomsky serves to give the so-called Left all their opinions, instead of having people think for themselves and look beyond the smoke screen of Left/Right politics. I have never once heard Chomsky address the banking system. The man is a deceiver and a fraud. Most people are conditioned to believe everything "intellectuals" say as if they are all-knowing gods.
As long as Chomsky is speaking, he is being hypocritical. This is a guy who made a fortune on a military contract that employed him to help integrate computer systems into Military Attack Helicopters, and now has all his money tied up in the "Evil" Capitalist system on Wall Street.
I'm not gonna say it doesn't matter if he's been hypocritical or not. But I don't see why it matters. Shouldn't someones ideas stand on their own? The only thing a biography on an author tells you is how the author may have been influenced in his writing, it shouldn't nullify his points. (Unless you are looking for someone to worship). It's like saying Bush is a terrible president because i did coke or was born rich; that's just not true, he's a terrible president because of his policies. It's like going Parenti vs Chompsky (hey whats up banking system debt dude). Outside the left they are seen as the same people with the same ideas, but the left sees the differences more clearly. Much respect if you hate Chompsky and love Michael P. but it doesn't help our cause, which should at least be to bring some of our common values to the main stream. I agree, but a person does not need to be right all the time to be right some of the time. If your waiting for the book written by the guy who is right all the time, well shoot, go write a new holy book. on a side note do you really think chompsky blames the US for all of it? I think he views the US as the country that has the power to change things.
I think he's doing all this to get us to be more involved, it's sweet. And it's scary at the same time, how we have become consumers and have lost so much as citizens. If the people of US stay asleep. Who are we to blame? Be the Change. Be the Change. Strike, strike, strike!
Chomsky makes money because people buy his books and pay to listen to him speak. What is wrong with that? I would love to be a rich Democrat with a home in Georgetown.
